EMD GP9 wrote:I don't particularly care for the new switchers. I'd rather use the #904.
bmcdr wrote:The 904 is a very nice engine to switch with, and no, it isn't falling apart (it was rebuilt 2 years ago). As I get older (36 years with the RR) I find that I like having things around me that remind me of days past, the chant of its non-turbocharged 567 is like music to my ears, most of you that log on to this site are young, you'll understand when you get to be my age.
diburning wrote:I love the sound of the non-turo 567. It actually sounds like the engine is working hard!
jwhite07 wrote:Older than dirt, eh Hutch?
p42thedowneaster wrote:Introducing the 3GS21B
Wow with a name like that...
Doesn't exactly have that nice familiar ring to it like F40 or GP40MC....and 3G just reminds me of cell phone networks! I guess "genset" will do.
Ah well aside from the name and the oversize "T" logo I really like it! Its the best thing I've seen from them since the GP40MCs!
Can they not pull a regular service commuter train with these?
diburning wrote:The oversized T logos have been fixed. The designation is correct. They are used as work units, but they do not provide HEP although they do have receptacles to run HEP through them. Also, looking at NRE's graph on their website, the genset locomotive has very little tractive effort at higher speeds, so it would not be ideal for running a commuter train which run at a higher speed than a general freight/rescue move.
The point of the gensets is lower emissions. An EMD SW1500 uses less fuel and provides better tractive effort than a genset. MBTA probably would not have purchased them if it wasn't for the federal grant.
Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests